Science Fiction Microstory Contest discussion
Science Fiction Microstory Contest (July 2016) ** COMMENTS ONLY **
OK, so let's take a vote. Is there anyone here OPPOSED to having a dedicated critique thread?One reason I suggest we all critique a particular story each month is that I don't have time to critique in depth, like my previous example, more than one story per contest. Others may feel the same as I, that they can do one review well or a bunch of them badly. And one good review is worth much more than a hundred "kisses on the cheek" any day in my view. (Unless it's Madonna.)
But this is only my personal preference. Frankly, I think this approach would not only produce many better and more comprehensive reviews, but also more reviews each month than now since we're all taking aim at the same target story and not many in this group strike me as willing to be left out of the literary fray.
I thought about it and came up with a simple review template I will be using for future reviews to minimize my time invested and stay focused. You can see this in my previous example SUB TERRA review: the structure consists of picking out the top three things I liked, brief descriptions of areas I think could be improved, and at least one literary example so I'm not just criticizing but contributing. Nobody else needs to or necessarily should do this; I simply offer it to the group as a time-saving tool idea.
-C. Lloyd Preville
I'm voting FOR a dedicated critique thread with the following attributes (please feel free to disagree or not use):1) It CAN be for a story submitted that month or a previous month - since it is a dedicated thread, it can be ignored by anyone who does not want spoilers or to be swayed by reviews until AFTER the voting is complete (I prefer to review right after I've read a story for the first time and strike while the mental iron is hot)
2) Everyone who submits a competitive entry commits to submitting at least one detailed review of a story of their choice. My thinking is, if everyone only picks one story to review, many authors could be waiting a long time to get some feedback. If you see that one story has garnered multiple reviews, then perhaps you pick a different one but you aren't required to. CLP's review template is a good place to start for creating a critique that is concise and conveys concrete details for the author (I need more c words here, obviously).
3) Short compliments remain in the comments thread like Dorthe suggests.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for considering.
re 'attribute 1.)' in Justin's list, I completely agree with that, even though in my 'suggested guidelines' ('suggested guideline 2.', message 90 above) I completely acquiesced to what I thought would be the majority opinion to not include the current month's stories. I thought it would be better to not fight for that given that it might jeapardise the whole concept of a dedicated critiquing thread coming into existence if it sparked a distracting sidebar disagreement about what stories could actually be critiqued in the proposed thread.
I feel more strongly that there should be such a thread than I do about which stories can be critiqued EVEN THOUGH my own instinct is to strongly agree with what Justin said, that it is better to "read a story for the first time and strike while the mental iron is hot."
p.s. I also would be happy to vote for attributes '2.' & '3.' of Justin's suggested list.
Justin,Substitute "concepts" for "details" and "contributor" for "author" and you've hit an alliteration home run. Lol
-C. Lloyd Preville
Ok then, let's go! "CLP's review template is a [I've checked the thesaurus, but still can't construe "review template" as words starting with 'c']
Replace "review template" with "critique contrivance."I can do this all day. . .
-C. Lloyd Preville
lol! "critique" ... of course!! How
Compliments consistently cherished.-C.
Standard format for most critique groups I've been in is: critique the piece, not the author (Dorthe's 3rd-person idea sounds great); use "sandwich method" (at least one positive comment before, one+ after, doing negative comments on a piece). Now, someone here suggested making doing a critique for the critique thread a requirement for entering one's story in a given month's contest. This would require critiquing only a previous contest's story/ies, since otherwise everyone would have to read any spoiler (and/or potentially judgment-affecting) comments on the critique thread. Probably more sensible would be the other person's suggestion that a person receiving an in-depth critique for his/her story "share the work" by doing the same for someone's story, which seems fair and does not set up contradictions.
If people decide to all critique the same story each month, then I suggest we simply go around (e.g., alphabetically by last names) regarding whose story gets critiqued. Otherwise, we're going to have some folks' stories never get critiqued, some get critiqued too often, etc. We should also have an opt-out for persons who don't really want this group's in-depth critique.
Anyone else wish to enjoy caballing my idea?Gut it like a fish? Rip out the entire central thesis of not influencing the current voting by reviewing "active" stories?
Stomp it until all the good juices squirt out and we're left with nothing more than an unappetizing bit of gristle?
Is there no justice in this place?
-C.
Mod
BTW, my story is up. Feel free to bash it.
Hi CLP,If the group just wants to review prior month stories as you suggest, I'm totally onboard. No enjoyment of caballing your idea was derived by me and no offense was intended. I simply toss ideas out for discussion. They can just as easily be tossed out.
No probs J.Was feeling theatrical just now. Tongue in cheek only.
-C.
Idea: why not have a single, long-standing critique thread, rather than a new one each month? Less work for the monthly winner, and also provides long-term context.
I expect critiquing will bring all the heat and excitement that apparently this 'bunch of old farts' - to paraphrase certain sentiments - seem unable to produce for some. Looking forward to it. :-)
Oh yes, heat and excitement, all right. ;)
Paula,Set aside your inhibitions. Free your mind! Take that big leap of faith and whiz across the street to land on the next building!
Don't forget passion, JJ. It's what makes the literary world go 'round.
Farts can only spin pinwheels. Lol
C.
"If you take the blue pill, you'll wake up and believe whatever you want to believe.If you take the red pill, I'll show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Remember, all I'm offering is the truth..."
Seems some folks here have been having a liquid lunch, or possibly breakfast - all very jolly.Talking of farts, just brought to mind that one word for 'to fart' in Brit slang is 'trump'.
Could have ramifications.
Jeremy's idea of a single long-running critique thread is very sensible.
What happened here?
I think Jot is going to include a yay or nay vote reminder for a dedicated critique thread during this next round of voting.Anyone else going to see Star Trek this weekend? I've got my ticket on my phone to see it in IMAX 3-D. I'm pretty excited although it's tempered by Anton Yelchin's passing.
@Andy L et al, re "one word for 'to fart' in Brit slang is 'trump'. https://www.facebook.com/fart4trump/i...
There's a link from that link to their website where their political slogan is, "Make Yourself Heard!"
(There was an old news clip on the telly earlier tonight about how people who tell 'the truth' ... of just 'how deep the rabbit hole goes' aren't listened to, or laughed at, showing one interviewee saying, months and months ago that Trump really would be the Republican nominee for president. The interviewer said, laughing, "Now I know you don't really believe that!" and he and the other interviewees on the panel were virtually 'falling about' laughing and shaking their heads in good humoured disbelief, at how 'melodramatic' the truth-sayer was being. But fast forward to now ... and then on to November ... that SUB TERRA (that Justin 'brought to the surface' - huh?) is still burrowing through that rabbit
~ I can get away with saying things like that 'cos I am (at least one person here thinks - and says -) an "empty provocateur" ... no hang on, it was "pasteurizer" ... uhm, no oh yes, "posturizer" ... "posturer" Oh, why couldn't they have just used a word starting with 'c'!! ...? Life was so much simpler here, briefly, when that was all the go! (Actually, I'm a glass half full {
J-Sitting in theater lobby now.
Show starts in 30 min 3D glasses clutched firmly.
Hoping not to trump in theater.
That is all. . .
... and be careful about clapping at the good bits in the film too, C.Apparently political correctness has its sights on that - if the latest move from a primary school here is anything to go by. They've just banned clapping at the school! The children are allowed to, as long as a teacher pre-approves it, "silently punch the air" to express their appreciation of some performance or other at the school, in deference to those who may be distressed by noise!
Edited my entry. Clarified some parts, unclarified others. Hard to tell which sometimes.
Andy try using a highlighter on the screen but no scrolling.Just got out of theater, no trumping thank goodness although there was almost nobody there and I probably could have trumped like a drunken sea captain after month-old beans for dinner for the entire two hours and nobody would have noticed.
Wanna know the ending? : )
-C.
Really wondering what sort of critiquing is likely for that thread.
Paula said, "Really wondering what sort of critiquing is likely for that thread." I would predict a very professional and appropriate sort ... given that 'that burden' (for some) has now been lifted, or at least very soon is likely to be lifted, and dropped off into a dedicated thread where the weight of 'perpetually professional and appropriate behaviour' is waiting to be adopted into its new abode; freeing up 'humour and other extrapolations' to run a little wild, on this thread! :)
EDIT: or as you said, Paula, (message 269, June Comments thread, quoting, as you said, someone you knew ...)
"Everything follows from a contradiction"
Yes, nice one, Greg! Cool edits, Andy G.
Andy L., is it November 9, then? But this week is the last good hope for a sane or humane one. I've friends in Philly but not a practical trip this year. . .
Justin, Yes, it is Lou Cifer. Actually a cross of him and Hades the Greek god of underworld. Who was married Persephone goddess of the underworld who would spend part of the year in Hades (winter).
re Rule 5 of the contest, "5) ... You don't need a qualifying story to cast a vote, but must offer the reason for your vote if you don’t have an entry."I haven't ever 'not had an entry in the contest' AND 'cast a vote' so I've never had to consider what rule 5 actually means. Does anybody know? eg Does "offer[ing] the reason for the vote" mean 'the reason you want to vote' or 'the reason you voted for a given story' - like a mini critique of that story?
Heather, there's actually history behind that rule. We were concerned about the possibility of people popping in to cast votes--e.g., for a friend, or e.g., from boredom or no reason whatsoever--who'd no real interest in science fiction or writing science fiction at all; we were somewhat divided between those feeling anyone looking in LI's sf group and then into the contest should be able to vote, and those feeling the contest should be a learning/growing experience for those in it, and thus voting be a part of that participation rather than open to those not participating in the rest. And so what it means is basically "Why are you voting here? You like science fiction? You like to write? Other reason(s)? Or just give a sense who you are"---with, really, no right or wrong answers, just a willingness to open up that much to the group.
Heather - I wouldn't worry about it at all. Just vote the way you usually do. Your credit is good here.
Thanks Andy ... and Paula. (and here I was thinking I really had over used my 'credit' card around here, of late especially, Andy! :)
But, in all seriousness, re any concern there might be ... about what can be extrapolated - from some of the 'loose' humour, etc recently on this Comments thread - to the proposed Critiques thread (which is what I assume Paula meant when she said "Really wondering what sort of critiquing is likely for that thread." {message 136, above} that maybe there is a danger that the new thread might be in danger of sinking into ill-disciplined babble, if this thread is anything to go by) ... there is an intriguing conversation to be had here, about the nature and role of extrapolation itself, for those who, as writers/observers of life/artists, can see the value of such a conversation.That value (of discussing extrapolation's role in artistic expression) can be found, I think, in three key sub-issues:
1.) Is 'good extrapolation' part of the talent and/or 'good discipline' of the artist?
I believe it is and that it is key to our role in examining truths that 'might' remain more hidden to those who, by training or nature, have entered a habit of avoiding the 'good extrapolation' habits of creative thinking.
2.) Does the inherent existence of 'good extrapolation' (in the creative aspect of everybody) explain why we intuitively feel that there is real truth in the statement that Paula quoted (in message 269, June Comments thread): "everything follows from a contradiction" ?
I, for one, think it does! (That is, for example, a direct path can be extrapolated from ill-discipline to discipline - which seems contradictory - by re-perceiving 'ill-discipline' as 'an exercise in free association of lots of variables' which multi-variables, then, in that state, are well able to be funneled into one creatively 'disciplined' outcome! Such creative outcomes are just the re-balancings that must continue perpetually in any creative system; hence the perpetual 'contradictions' that "everything follows from."
3.) Is there any science behind this ... and hence might it have real interest to science fiction writing?
Definately, yes! eg as indicated by this scientific study on why humans are often not comfortable with extraploating and therefore do it poorly http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic...
It concludes " ...the challenge [for the human brain] in multiple object tracking [that is, in extrapolating when too many seemingly contradictory factors are involved] is not in predicting the future, so much as interpreting the present. Telling targets and non targets apart is difficult because they are perceived noisily. [that is, perceived as being 'overwhelming' the sense of comfort 'in the present moment' that people also crave.]"
It seems to me like the whole area of 'extrapolation ability' not only is of interest to writers and artists generally (as mentioned in point 2 above), but also it is of particular interest in science fiction writing because it is fertile ground for thinking about a possible future direction in the development of artificial intellingence!
The moral of the tale (at least one small but importance part of that tale) is: let's not be in a hurry (out of a fear of having our sense of comfort in an uncluttered 'present moment') to judge instances of 'the exercise of artistic/creative extrapolation' as unwelcome instances of 'ill-discipline', or 'empty posturing' or the like ... because, in fact, such 'contradictions' are blessings that creativity has bestowed upon us and it would be rude to shun our creative gifts!
I wanted to share with y'all a private joke from my story - no spoilers: Cocio (pronounced with a non-logical [k] in the middle) is a Danish chocolate milk ... for some reason I only just realised how it might sound to English-adapted ears. https://www.google.dk/webhp?sourceid=...
@ Dorthe, lol! A bit like the cock soup popular in parts of the Caribbean, where roosters have learned to crow a little less conspicously.
Re the establishment of a single thread for the critiques, I would be OK with that if I only read it on my desktop/ laptop, but on my Android, for these Goodread threads, I can't go directly to the latest comment. They are grouped in pages of 50 comments, and I can't seem to go to the next page without swiping through all the comments on the existing page. Even now, once the comments here start to accumulate towards the end of the month, it's a hassle to see the latest one on my phone. I would propose just starting up a new critique thread at the beginning of each month. As here, if folks want to finish up critiquing an item in the current month, that would be fine, but new stories would go on the new month's critique thread.
Wow.Hmm, wait. . . didn't you then take the C right off just a little bit later?
I really meant no offense. What I meant was that you indicated it would be fun to try the critique thread, so was giving you your due.
This is a good thing, no?
-C.
C.,Actually, the more you keep 'negotiating' the more I feel
But we should not be limited to critiquing only the set story for a given month. We should be able to also critique (say by a set formula as mentioned by a couple of people already ... and say with a word limit) one or a few other stories that we particularly want to critique.
Thanks Heather for your kind comments. I'm still putting my hair out from the fire ignited by JJ a moment ago.Hypnotized? Lol. I'm just making a suggestion with some passionate commitment added. Just one of many opinions here.
-C.
J.J. wrote: "btw, C - you really don't want to get Richard, Heather and me all upset on the same day. Two out of three so far."JJ,
I'm very sorry to have pissed you off. It was not intentional.
What the heck is a "Barney"?
-C.
As for critique, I second the proposal of a third thread; it could be for in-depth analysis, spoilery quotes and all, leaving the kiss-on-the-cheek comments to the Comments thread. Anyone can then choose to stay away from that thread to avoid spoilers to unread stories, or get into a discussion without having to hold back quotes or comments.
The format of the critique may warrant a thought; in my story tellers' group, critique is given in third person. At our monthly workshops, a teller of a story sits down apart from the (half) circle, maybe even back turned, and the others comment and critique ON the story and the way it is told, not TO the teller. In that way, it becomes less personal, and the teller does not feel compelled to reply to all, if any, of it.